Issuu on Google+

Recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut

State of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division February 15, 2012

Introduction Each February 15 the Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division of the Office of Policy and Management issues two criminal justice reports: Annual Recidivism Report Correctional Population Forecast Report These reports provide policy makers and front-line professionals with the information they need to continue the progress our state has experienced in recent years. Governor Dannel P. Malloy has set two goals for our state’s criminal justice system: reduce crime and maximize efficiency. Recidivism and changes in the correctional population are two important indicators of progress in this regard. This year our report puts the focus on sex offenders. You will see in this analysis a new and somewhat unique perspective. For the first time, we measure offenders with previous sex offense convictions as well as convicted offenders who were originally charged as sex offenders but who were ultimately convicted of other offenses. We believe this will provide policy makers and practitioners with the data and analysis they need to identify offenders with a high risk for committing new sex offenses following release from prison. At the end of the day, our goal is public safety by reducing the level of recidivism. Based on our analysis, post-release supervision focused on the high-risk sex offenders appears to be a cost-effective strategy to prevent crime. Please feel free to share your ideas about how we can best accomplish these goals going forward. With your help, I am confident that our state can continue to achieve better outcomes with offenders who are incarcerated or who are being supervised by parole or probation officers. As the prison population continues to decline, it is my hope that some of the consequent budgetary savings will be reinvested in the supervision and treatment programs that have demonstrated success. Thank you for taking the time to read this report. Please visit our website for more information on current trends in Connecticut’s criminal justice system.

Mike Lawlor Under Secretary Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division State Office of Policy and Management 450 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106-1365 (Office) 860-418-6394 www.ct.gov/opm/cjppd

1

Acknowledgements This report could not have been produced without the help and assistance of many people. First and foremost, the research published here reflects the guidance, advice and feedback of an advisory panel of experts who work on the front lines of State efforts to manage, supervise and treat Connecticut’s population of sex offenders. The analysis could not have been accomplished without the data and support provided by the Department of Correction and the Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division. Without them, it would have been impossible to collect complete criminal histories on 14,398 offenders within the time that was available. The Office of the State Public Defender and the Board of Pardons and Parole provided invaluable access to their staff who explained their important roles in the process. In addition, there are dozens of people from various State criminal justice agencies that helped to move this project forward in one way or another. Finally, it is necessary to acknowledge that this report is funded, in part, through a grant awarded by the Bureau of Justice, Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed here are those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Justice. Ivan Kuzyk, Author

Director, CT Statistical Analysis Center Office of Policy and Management Criminal justice Policy & Planning Division

2

Table of Contents Introduction by Under Secretary Mike Lawlor Acknowledgements Table of Contents Executive Summary

1 2 3 4

Findings Sex offenders in Connecticut Recidivism among 746 sentenced sex offenders Recidivism among sex offender subgroups Releases and discharges in 2005 The Sex Offender Registry A final caveat

6 8 14 17 18 19

Appendices Advisory panel Methodological questions Sex offender typologies, chart Recidivism – 1,395 offenders with a prior arrest for a sex crime Recidivism – 896 offenders with a prior conviction for a sex crime Recidivism – 746 offenders with a sentence history for a sex crime Recidivism – 423 offenders whose last sentence was for a sex crime Recidivism – 1,229 offenders w/Sex Treatment Scores higher than 2 Summary of new prison sentences for sex crimes General criminality among offenders who were released in 2005 Sex offenders, parole and special parole Age at first arrest for a sex crime Age at first sex offense resulting in a prison sentence The Connecticut Risk Assessment Board Special Management Unit – DOC Community Services Division The Collaborative Model in Connecticut

20 21 25 26 28 29 31 33 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Glossary

45

3

Executive Summary Although the term “sex offender” is commonly used to describe anyone who has been convicted of sex-crimes, it is important to recognize that individuals who have committed sex offenses do not constitute a single, homogenous population. Together they exhibit a wide range of criminal behaviors that may or may not include violence or contact with other persons. As a consequence, the risk, or likelihood, of committing new sex crimes is not consistent across all sex offender types. This study tracked 14,398 men for a five-year period following their 2005 release or discharge from a CT prison in 2005. Every subsequent arrest, criminal conviction or reincarceration event was captured and analyzed to produce the 5-year recidivism rates for the group. In addition to analyzing recidivism among all offenders released or discharged during 2005, the study identified five subgroups from the total cohort who were either convicted for sex offenses or thought to have been involved in criminal sexual crimes but not convicted. The five subgroups were:  1,395 men who had had a prior arrest for a sex-related offense  896 men who had a prior conviction for a sex-related offense  746 men who had served a prison sentence for a sex-related offense before being released in 2005  423 men, a subset of the 746, whose last prison sentence before release was for a sex-related offense, and  1,229 men who were assigned Sex Treatment Scores of 2 or higher by the Department of Correction prior to their 2005 release or discharge. In 2005, 746 offenders who had served a prison sentence for a least one sex-related offense were released or discharged from prison. Over the next five years: o 27 (3.6%) of these men were arrested and charged with a new sex crime. o 20 (2.7%) were convicted for new sex offense, and o 13 (1.7%) were returned to prison to serve a sentence for a new sex crime. The sexual recidivism rates for the 746 sex offenders released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The real challenge for public agencies is to determine the level of risk which specific offenders pose the public. 4

Recidivism data for each sex-offenders subgroup is presented in the Appendix. In 2005, 37% of non-sex offenders completed their sentences in prison. In contrast, 79% of the 746 sex offenders who had served a prison sentence for a new sex crime were discharged directly from a prison facility at the end of their sentences (EOS). The reason the EOS discharge rate was so high for sex offenders reflects two facts: 1) the DOC did not release TS-eligible sex offenders into the community and 2) sex offenders were not accepted in most of the DOC’s residential, halfway house network. Almost 50% of sex offenders were sentenced to probation at the completion of their sentences compared to 33% for non-sex offenders. According to this analysis, arrest on a prior sex charge was the single best predictor of being sentenced to prison for a new sex crime in the five years following release from prison. Of the 1,395 offenders who had been arrested on sex charges before 2005, 2.4% were sentenced to prison for new sex offenses within 5 years. This compares with a 1.9% rate among offenders who had a prior conviction for a sex crime, and a 1.7% rate for offenders who had served a prison sentence for a prior sex crime. This finding warrants further study. It suggests that conviction and incarceration for a sex crime exerts a positive impact on reducing future sex crimes. The DOC-Sex Treatment Score was the 2nd best predictor of sexual recidivism. Among the 1,229 offenders with Sex Treatment Scores of 2 or higher, 2.3% were sentenced to prison for new sex offenses. Connecticut employs a unique collaborative approach in supervising and treating sex offenders in the community. The approach links parole officers and probation officers, victim advocates and a non-profit provider of sex offender treatment and programming. Together these organizations design oversight and supervision plans for every offender. Some sex offenders have extensive, violent non-criminal histories. Among the 195 offenders who had been convicted for Sex Assault 1 prior to 2005, 29.2% had also served a prison sentence for a burglary related crime; 13.3% had served a sentence for robbery. The high incidence of burglaries and robberies among this group indicates both a heightened willingness to use force and overstep boundaries. Among the entire population of male prisoners released in 2005, only 16% had been convicted of burglary-related charges and less than 8% had been convicted for a robbery.

5

Sex offenders in Connecticut The following table contains data supplied by the CT State Police, the Department of Correction, CSSD Adult Probation and the Special Offender Management Unit at the DOC Division of Parole. It is published here to provide readers with an appreciation for the size of the sex offender population in CT. Sex offender counts in CT on January 1, 2012 Offenders on the Connecticut Sex Offenders Registry Offenders out of compliance with registry requirements Offenders supervised by Probation's Sex Offender Management Unit Offenders supervised by Parole's Sex Offender Management Unit Inmates w/DOC Sex Treament Score of S2 to S5 Sex treatent score: S2, non-contact offender Sex treatent score: S3, contact offender, one victim Sex treatent score: S4, contact offender, more than one victim Sex treatent score: S5, contact offender, gratuitous or sadistic violence

Offenders 5,397 929 2,273 223 3,117 184 2,266 636 31

Although the term “sex offender” is commonly used to describe anyone who has been convicted of sex-crimes, it is important to recognize that individuals who have committed sex offenses do not constitute a single, homogenous population. Together they exhibit a wide range of criminal behaviors that may or may not include violence or contact with other persons. Sex offenders vary by age, ethnicity and social background. They also vary by their motivations, the nature of their crimes and by the extensiveness of their non-sex-related criminal histories. As a consequence, the risk, or likelihood, of committing new sex crimes is not consistent across all sex offender types. This study tracked 14,398 sentenced male offenders for a five year period following their discharges from prison in 2005. Prior to their 2005 releases, almost one-in-ten of these men (1,395) had been arrested and charged with a sex-related crime. Eight hundred ninety-six (896) of these men had been convicted for a sex-related offense and 746 had served a prison sentence for a sexual offense prior to their 2005 release. The following chart was produced, with the assistance of this study’s advisory panel, to help readers recognize some of the typologies that are observed among the population of sex offenders. The illustration identifies three broad groups: 1) Child molesters 2) Rapists, and 3) Non-contact offenders. It also distinguishes between offenders who have committed contact crimes and those whose crimes have involved no physical contact with a victim. A more comprehensive chart appears in the appendices.

6

During the course of this study, it was not possible to assign a definitive sex-offender typology to any of the sex offenders who were released in 2005. That information is not currently available in a manner that would allow us to study recidivism outcomes by sex offender typology. The Department of Correction assigns a Sex Treatment (Needs) Score to every offender who is sentenced to prison. These scores, however, were designed as population management tools, i.e., to assist staff in placing offenders in appropriate prison facilities. The scores were not designed for diagnostic risk assessment. As no coding scheme has been implemented that provides an accurate method of differentiating typologies or risk among sex offenders, the Sex Treatment Score is sometimes used as a de facto measure for differentiating risk among incarcerated sex offenders.

7

Recidivism among 746 sentenced sex offenders In 2005, 14,398 sentenced, male offenders were released or discharged from a Connecticut prison. Over the next five years, 286 of these men were arrested and charged with sex offenses committed after they were released from prison. One hundred thirty-four (134) of these men were convicted for new sex offenses after they were released and 99 were returned to the prison to begin a new prison sentence for a sex crime1. Of the 99 men who received prison sentences for new sex crimes, only 13 had ever served a prior prison sentence for a sexual offense. Within the population of 14,398 men released from prison in 2005, 746 had served either their last sentence - or a previous prison sentence - for a sex- related offense. In this section of the report the rearrest, reconviction and reincarceration histories of these men will be highlighted. It is important for readers to recognize, however, that these men were not the only men released from prison in 2005 who had been involved in prior crimes in which a significant, criminal sexual component had been present. These 746 men were the only ones who had actually been convicted for specific sexual offenses and sentenced to prison. Within the total population of men released in 2005, this study was able to identify several hundred men who almost certainly were involved in a sex crime but had been able to avoid a conviction on a sex-related offense. Because their numbers were so significant, this study evaluated recidivism among four additional sex offender subgroups, in addition to the 746. Data on these sex offender groups are contained in the Appendices. The following table contains a summary of all sexual offenses that resulted in a prior prison sentence for the 746 sex offenders highlighted in this section of this report. The data contains counts for both offenses and offenders. Almost one quarter of these men had been sentenced to prison for Sex Assault 1. Twenty-six percent of these men had been sentenced to prison for Risk of Injury to a Minor, the most common child molestation charge. A small percentage of men had been incarcerated for prostitution related offenses. Prostitution-related offenses were included here even though it could be argued that these are morals offenses and not strictly sex offenses. Prior sentences related to Sex Registry non-compliance were also included since they indicated a prior conviction for a sex crime.

1

It is widely acknowledged that sex crimes are among the least-reported serious crimes. As a result not all sex offenses result in an arrest.

8

Aggregate sex-related sentence history for 746 offenders released in 2005

DOC Statute Sex assault 1 53A070 53A072 53A070B 53A070A 53-238 Sex assault 2 53A071 53A073 Other sexual assault 53A073A 53A072A Crimes against minors 53-021* 53A196A 53A090A Registry offenses 54-252 54-251 Prostitution related 53A082 53A083 53A088 53A087 53A086 Child pornography 53A196D 53A196C Indecency/voyeurism 53A186 53A189A

Sentences imposed

Offenders sentenced

Percent of 746 offenders with sexrelated prison sentence

SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F RAPE, FIRST DEGREE BF SEX ASLT, SPOUSE/COHAB RELATIONSHIP BF SEXUAL ASSAULT 1ST DEGREE - AGGRVTD F RAPE F

203 9 8 7 1

181 9 8 7 1

24.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 0.1%

SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F RAPE, SECOND DEGREE CF

231 3

201 3

26.9% 0.4%

SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF

106 72

91 67

12.2% 9.0%

INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F EMPLOY MINOR IN OBSCENE PERFORMANCE AF ENTICING A MINOR

216 1 1

194 1 1

26.0% 0.1% 0.1%

REG PERSON WHO COMM SEX VIOL OFF DF REG OF PERSON COMMIT CRIM OFF MINOR DF

21 4

20 4

2.7% 0.5%

PROSTITUTION AM PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE AM PROMOTING PROSTITUTION, 3RD DEGREE DF PROMOTING PROSTITUTION, 2ND DEGREE CF PROMOTING PROSTITUTION, 1ST DEGREE BF

46 14 7 5 4

21 14 8 5 4

2.8% 1.9% 1.1% 0.7% 0.5%

POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F IMPORTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F

12 1

7 1

0.9% 0.1%

PUBLIC INDECENCY VOYEURISM

58 1

35 1

4.7% 0.1%

Offense

BM

In 2005, 746 sentenced offenders who had served a prison sentence for a least one sexrelated offense were released or discharged from prison. Over the next five years, 27 (3.6%) of these men were arrested and charged with a new sex crime. Twenty (20), 2.7%, were convicted for new sex offense, and 13, 1.7%, were returned to prison to serve a sentence for a new sex crime. 5-year sex-crime recidivism - 746 offenders with a DOC sentence history for a sex crime

Offender group No sex sentence history Sex sentence history Total cohort

Males 13652 746 14398

New sex New Any new New sex New sex crime New sentence, sex crime crime crime conviction sentence, sex crime, arrest arrest rate conviction rate sex crime rate 259 1.9% 114 0.8% 86 0.6% 27 3.6% 20 2.7% 13 1.7% 286 2.0% 134 0.9% 99 0.7%

9

The recidivism rates for new sex crimes, shown here for the 746 sex offenders released in 2005, are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict the conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high recidivism rates. In reality, the picture is considerably more complex. While some sex offenders certainly pose an extremely high risk for committing new offenses, this does not appear to be the case for the majority of offenders. The real challenge for public agencies is to determine the level of risk specific offenders pose to the public. While only 27 of the 746 sex offenders observed here were arrested on new sex-related charges, the new arrest rate for non-sex crimes was significantly higher. In fact, of the 746 sex offenders in the study, 76%, or 567, were rearrested within 5 years. This high rearrest rate was surpassed, barely, by the 13,652 offenders who did not have a prior sex-related sentence history. Of this larger group, 78.8% were rearrested. New arrest rate - 746 offenders with a DOC sentence history for a sex crime

Offender group No sex sentence Sex sentence history total

Males 13652 746 14398

Any new arrest 10751 567 11318

Any new arrest, rate 78.8% 76.0% 78.6%

Any VOP arrest 5182 369 5551

VOP arrest rate 38.0% 49.5% 38.6%

Any registry arrest 30 212 242

Any new New sex Registry sex crime crime arrest rate arrest arrest rate 0.2% 259 1.9% 28.4% 27 3.6% 1.7% 286 2.0%

Of the 567 sex offenders who were rearrested, 369 (65%) were arrested for Violation of Probation (VOP). Among the 10,751 offenders without prior sex sentence histories who were arrested, only 48% were arrested for violating the terms of their probation. It is not clear, at this point, whether the difference in VOP-arrest rates reflects tighter oversight of sex offenders on probation, or the higher proportion of sex offenders sentenced to probation. Sex offenders were more likely than others to be sentenced to serve terms of probation once they had completed their prison sentences. In 2005, 47.9% of the 746 sex offenders in the study were sentenced to probation. That figure compares with just 33% for all offenders who were released.

10

Offenders sentenced to probation following the completion of their 2005 prison sentences

Probation to follow No Yes Total Probation to follow, %

All males 9652 4746 14398

No sexrelated sentence history 9263 4389 13652

Sexrelated sentence history 389 357 746

Last sentence not sexrelated 9520 4455 13975

33.0%

32.1%

47.9%

31.9%

Last sentence Sex Sex DOC sex DOC sex DOC sex DOC sex was sex- treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment treatment related score: 0 or 1 Score >1 score: 2 score: 3 score: 4 score: 5 132 8916 736 76 583 75 2 291 4253 493 24 400 69 423 13169 1229 100 983 144 2 68.8%

32.3%

40.1%

24.0%

40.7%

47.9%

0.0%

In the five years following their 2005-releases from prison, 20 of the 746 sex offenders identified here were convicted for new sex offenses. This rate was over three times higher than the rate for non-sex offenders. Overall conviction patterns appeared similar to overall rearrest patterns. Once again, the non-sex crime group had a slightly higher recidivism rates for overall convictions. In the five years following their release in 2005, 69.3% of all offenders were convicted on new criminal charges. Among the 746 offenders with prior sex sentence histories the rate was slightly lower, 66.1%. New conviction rate - 746 offenders with a DOC sentence history for a sex crime

Offender group No sex sentence Sex sentence history total

Males 13652 746 14398

New sex Any VOP Any Registry New sex crime Any conviction Any VOP conviction registry conviction crime conviction conviction rate conviction rate conviction rate conviction rate 9489 69.5% 4772 35.0% 18 0.1% 114 0.8% 493 66.1% 338 45.3% 128 17.2% 20 2.7% 9982 69.3% 5110 35.5% 146 1.0% 134 0.9%

Within five years of release, 493 of the 746 sex offenders released in 2005 were convicted for a wide range of new offenses. One quarter of these 493 men were convicted for violating the conditions of the CT Sex Offender Registry. While is not clear whether the high rate of registry-related arrests and convictions had any impact on reducing the number of sex crimes that were, or might have been, committed, it is apparent that the conditions attached to sex offender registration have a significant impact on the overall recidivism rate of sex offenders in the state. Three hundred (300) of the 746 sex offenders featured here were returned to prison to serve new sentences within five years of their releases. These offenders were sentenced to prison at a significantly lower rate (40.2%) than the 13,652 offenders who had no prior sex sentence history (50.3%). The rate at which the sex offenders were sentenced to prison for new sex crimes, however, was considerably higher than the rate for non-sex offenders, 1.7% compared to 0.6%.

11

Return to prison with a new sentence - 746 offenders with a prior DOC sentence for a sex-related crime

Offender group No history Prior history Total cohort

Males 13652 746 14398

Any Any new Any new Any registryNew Any new prison Any new VOP registryrelated New sentence, prison sentence, VOP sentence, related sentence, sentence, sex crime, sentence rate sentence rate sentence rate sex crime rate 6864 50.3% 1513 11.1% 10 0.1% 86 0.6% 300 40.2% 70 9.4% 69 9.2% 13 1.7% 7164 49.8% 1583 11.0% 79 0.5% 99 0.7%

The 13 sex offenders who were sentenced to prison for new sex crimes were convicted on a range of charges. Five of the thirteen were sentenced for crimes against children. All of these sex offenders had DOC Sex Treatment Scores indicating that they had committed contact crimes with their victims prior to being released in 2005. Four of the 13, those with scores of 4, had prior criminal sexual histories involving more than one victim. New prison sentences - 746 offenders with a prior sex-related prison sentence

Offender Offender 1 Offender 2 Offender 3 Offender 4 Offender 5 Offender 6 Offender 7 Offender 8 Offender 9 Offender 10 Offender 11

DOC Sex Treatment Score 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3

Offender 12

3

Offender 13

3

Statute 53A196D 53A186 53A186 53-021* 53A072A 53A073A 53-021* 53A071 53A072A 53A072A 53-021* 53A073A 53A196E 53A196 53-021* 53A073A

Sentence Offense POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts) PUBLIC INDECENCY BM INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 2ND DEG F OBSCENITY AS TO MINORS F INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE

F (2 counts)

F

F

F

In addition to tracking new arrests, convictions and prison sentences, this study also looked at 5-year recidivism rates for any new reincarceration. Most reincarceration events fall into three categories: 1) readmissions as pre-trial detainees facing new charges 2) remands for technical violations and criminal violations while on community supervision, and 3) returns to prison to begin a new prison sentence. Within 5 years of release, more than two-thirds of all offenders released in 2005 had been readmitted to prison, for at least one night.

12

Return to prison within 5 years

Offender group No sex sentence history Sex sentence history Total cohort

Males 13652 746 14398

Returned to prison w/in 5 years 9270 513 9783

Returned to prison, rate 67.9% 68.8% 67.9%

While the overall recidivism rate of both groups was remarkably similar, the initial pathway back into prison for the 746 sex offenders was significantly different than the pattern for the larger, non-sex group. The following table contains the 5-year recidivism rates for both groups. The table also identifies the type of readmission event associated with that first prison return. Among the 746 sex offenders, 77% returned to prison as pre-trial detainees, i.e., facing new charges. In contrast, only 57% of non-sex offenders were readmitted to prison as pre-trial defendants. The higher rate of pre-trial detentions among sex offenders may have been driven by higher rates of arrest for Violations of Probation and higher bonds levied against former sex offenders. Return readmission, by type, to prison within 5 years

Readmit reason New charges, unsentenced Technical violation, remand New prison sentence Criminal violations, remand All other admit types Total readmitted Offenders in group Rate returing to prison, % Offenders not readmitted

Entire cohort 5697 1348 1028 940 770 9783 14398 67.9% 4615

No sex sentence history 5301 1303 993 921 752 9270 13652 67.9% 4382

No sex sentence history, rate by type 57% 14% 11% 10% 8% 100%

Sex sentence history 396 45 35 19 18 513 746 68.8% 233

Sex sentence history, rate by type 77% 9% 7% 4% 4% 100%

Among non-sex offenders returning to prison, 24% first returned for a technical or criminal violation. Among the 513 sex offenders who were returned to prison within 5 years, only 13% were remanded for criminal or technical violations. The low remand rate for sex offenders is certainly related to the fact that only a low percentage of sex offenders, compared to other offenders, were released to community supervision programs in 2005. In 2005, only 37% of non-sex offenders completed their sentences in prison. In contrast, 79% of the 746 sex offenders featured here were discharged directly from a prison facility at the end of their sentences (EOS). The reason the EOS discharge rate was so 13

high for sex offenders reflects two simple facts: 1) the DOC did not release TS-eligible sex offenders into the community and 2) sex offenders were not accepted in most of the DOC’s residential, halfway house network.

Cum. percent reincarcerated

Although the reasons that offenders in both groups were first readmitted to prison varied considerably, the rate at which they were readmitted was remarkably consistent. By the 22nd month following their 2005 releases, 50% of all members of either group had been readmitted to prison for at least one night. Time to first reincarceration event

70% 60%

50% 40%

13,653 w/o sex offenses, cum %

30%

746 w/sex offense history, cum %

20% 10%

0% 1

5

9

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

53

57

Months since 2005 discharge or release

Recidivism among sex-offender subgroups The appendices, at the back of this report, contain recidivism findings for five sex offender sub-groups that were identified during the course of this research. These groups, like the 746 offenders featured in the previous section, were culled from the 14,398-man cohort that was released from prison in 2005. There were solid methodological reasons for evaluating the recidivism rates for five over-lapping sex offender groupings. Perhaps most importantly, it provided an opportunity to test whether different criteria used in the identification of sex offenders would produce different recidivism outcomes. The vast majority of criminal cases disposed in state courts each year are the product of a near-ubiquitous plea-negotiation process. Prosecutors and defense attorneys wrestle over evidence, charges, dispositions and sanctions, each seeking to maximize the interests of public safety on one side and the interests of the defendant on the other. One unpleasant consequence of this system is that a significant but undetermined number of men who have committed sex crimes avoid convictions on sex-related charges each and every year. As described later (see Appendix, page A-22), there is some evidence that some of these men present a high risk of committing new sex 14

crimes although they are not required to register with the state’s sex offender registry. Nor are they compelled to participate in sex offender treatment programs. In order to test the intersection between actual offender outcomes and courtdisposition outcomes, five sex offender subgroups were isolated in a manner that allowed the study to test whether criminal, sexual recidivism rates varied by group criteria. The five subgroups that were created were: o 1,395 men who had had a prior arrest for a sex-related offense o 896 men who had a prior conviction for a sex-related offense o 746 men who had served a prison sentence for a sex-related offense before being released in 2005 o 423 men, a subset of the 746, whose last prison sentence before release was for a sex-related offense, and o 1,229 men who were assigned Sex Treatment Scores of 2 or higher by the Department of Correction prior to their 2005 release or discharge. Because of overlaps, a total of 1,712 offenders, in the 14,398-man cohort, met at least one sex offender criterion. Differentiating different groupings of sex offenders allowed the study to compare outcomes for offenders who were a) charged with sex crimes but not convicted, b) convicted for sex offenses but not incarcerated, and c) identified by the DOC as sex offenders but had no conviction history for a sex offense. If the criminal justice system operated in an ideal way, we would expect that criminal, sexual recidivism rates of persons arrested for sex crimes but not convicted would be lower than the rates for offenders who were convicted of sex crimes. Further, we would expect that that the criminal sexual recidivism rates for, both, arrested and conviction groups would be lower still than for groups of offenders who had been convicted and sentenced to prison for sex-related offenses. The following table contains data that compares the 5-year recidivism data for offenders receiving new prison sentence for new offenses. The 746-man sex offender group, highlighted in the previous section, is included here for the sake of continuity. The last column on the right contains the recidivism rate for offenders who received prison sentences for new sex-crimes committed after they were released form prison in 2005.

15

Return to prison with a new sentence - by sex offender flag group

Offender group Prior arrest, sex-related Prior conviction, sex-related Sentence history, sex-related Last sentence, sex-related Sex treatment score: 2 - 5 STS = 1 STS = 2 STS = 3 STS = 4 Total cohort

Males in group 1395 896 746 423 1229 12904 100 983 144 14398

Any new Any new Any Any registryNew Any new prison Any new VOP registryrelated New sentence, prison sentence, VOP sentence, related sentence, sentence, sex crime, sentence rate sentence rate sentence rate sex crime rate 637 45.7% 172 12.3% 68 4.9% 33 2.4% 371 41.4% 94 10.5% 63 7.0% 17 1.9% 300 40.2% 70 9.4% 69 9.2% 13 1.7% 120 28.4% 30 7.1% 34 8.0% 9 2.1% 542 44.1% 138 11.2% 73 5.9% 28 2.3% 6563 50.9% 1437 11.1% 6 0.0% 71 0.6% 55 55.0% 12 12.0% 0 0.0% 6 6.0% 431 43.8% 113 11.5% 65 6.6% 18 1.8% 56 38.9% 13 9.0% 8 5.6% 4 2.8% 7164 49.8% 1583 11.0% 79 0.5% 99 0.7%

According to this analysis, arrest on a prior sex charge was the single best predictor of being sentenced to prison for a new sex crime. Of the 1,395 offenders who had been arrested on sex charges before 2005, 2.4% were sentenced to prison for sex offenses within 5 years. This compares with a 1.9% rate among offenders who had been convicted for a sex crime in the past, and a 1.7% rate for offenders who had served a prison sentence for sex crimes in the past. This finding warrants further study. It suggests that conviction and incarceration for a sex crime exert a positive impact on reducing future sex crimes. Among the sex offender grouping criteria, the DOC’s Sex Treatment Score was the 2nd best predictor of sexual recidivism. Among the 1,229 offenders with Sex Treatment Scores of 2 or higher, 2.3% were sentenced to prison for new sex offenses. The Sex Treatment Score’s predictive capacity is certainly related to the fact that scoring is based not only on conviction history but also on assessments of police reports, pre-sentence investigations and other information that can provide a more complete and thorough understanding of the nature and context of an offender’s crimes. A comparison of the recidivism rates among sex offenders with different Sex Treatment Scores revealed significant variability in rates between sex offender groups. Six percent (6%) of offenders with Sex Treatment Scores of 2 were returned to prison within 5 years on new sex charges. A treatment score of 2 indicates a non-contact sex offender. Many of these offenders had been charged, in the past, with public indecency, i.e., a crime associated with exhibitionists. The next highest recidivism rate, 2.8%, was found among prisoners with Treatment scores of 4, an indication that they had a prior sexual criminal history involving more than one victim.

16

Releases and discharges in 2005 Most inmates leaving prison in Connecticut undergo a period of DOC supervision in the community prior to completing of their sentences. In 2005, only 39% of offenders completed their prison sentences while in a prison facility. Most were released to community-based programs, like parole and transitional supervision (TS), where they could be observed and supervised as they re-acclimated to life outside prison walls. Among sex offenders, the pattern was much different. In 2005, 79% of 746 sex offenders who has served a prison term for a sex crime left prison at the completion of their sentences (EOS). In other words, these offenders were discharged directly into the community without any further DOC engagement. Almost 50% of the sex offenders who left prison at the end of their sentences were placed on probation. Major release and discharge types in 2005, males

Releases and discharges End of sentence (EOS) Release to TS Release to Parole Release to Furlough Release to HWH Discharge to Special Parole All others Total

All offenders 5631 2033 1778 1752 1543 256 1405 14398

No sex Sex Sex No sex sentence, sentence sentence sentence % history history, % 5045 37% 586 79% 2030 15% 3 0% 1672 12% 106 14% 1748 13% 4 1% 1540 11% 3 0% 236 2% 20 3% 1381 10% 24 3% 13652 100% 746 100%

In the wake of the Cheshire murders in 2007, significant structural changes were implemented at the Board of Pardons and Parole. Today, every parole-eligible offender, who does not waive the right to parole, has their case heard by a three-person panel from the Board of Pardons and Parole. The panel interviews every offender and reviews prison records, police reports and pre-sentence investigation reports before deciding when or if the offender will be released, and what conditions and restrictions will be applied to the offender’s community supervision plan. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant number of parole eligible sex-offenders who have been granted parole complete their sentence in prison because they lack sponsors and/or appropriate housing. The evidence also suggests that some offenders, with long sentences and parole-eligibility at 85%, waive parole because they prefer to complete their entire prison sentences and avoid the restrictions and stipulations that would be placed on them as parolees.

17

Among all the cases that members of the Board of Pardons and Parole (BOPP) consider for release to parole, sex offender cases weigh most heavily on them. Despite the fact that BOPP members are provided with packets of information that include evidencebased actuarial assessments of offender risk, given the nature of the sex crimes they review, Board members often find it difficult to decide cases solely on actuarial assessments. Board members also expressed an interest in seeing evidence concerning the efficacy of prison- and community-based treatment programs for parole-eligible sex offenders. Correctional Managed Health Care (CMHC), at UConn, has been the sole provider of programs to treat sex-offenders incarcerated by the Department of Correction for over a decade. At the time of this analysis, it could not be determined where the data on offender participation in these programs resides. As a result, the state cannot make any determination about the efficacy of the programming provided to sex offenders in Connecticut prisons.

The Sex Offender Registry Offenders who are included on the state’s Sex Offender Registry (SOR) appear there because they have been convicted for specific criminal offenses. The impact of the Registry on preventing new sex crimes is unknown. By statute (CGS §§ 54-250-54-261), the Registry, which is maintained by the Department of Emergency Services & Public Protection, does not consider or assess the risk of re-offense for individuals that it lists. Nor does the Department make any determination that an individual included on the Registry is currently dangerous. According to the Department’s website, “individuals listed on the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law. The Department’s main purpose is to make the information more accessible to the public but not to warn about any specific individual threat or risk.” Connecticut does not have a reliable mechanism to distinguish its high-risk sex offender population from the low-risk population on the registry. Although static and dynamic assessments are performed on many sex offenders, this information is not collected and synthesized in a manner that can be used to track or evaluate the quality of the treatment, management and supervision of the state’s sex offender population.

18

In recent years, surrounding states have adopted tiered registry-system based on assessments of offender risk in addition to conviction histories. Relying solely on criminal conviction histories does not guarantee that all offenders who pose a risk of committing new sex-related crime are identified and managed appropriately. In the state’s criminal justice system, where negotiated plea agreements are the norm, significant numbers of defendants who are charged with sex offenses are able to “plead out” to other, non-sexual charges and thus avoid the SOR requirements. In this study, we identified 1,410 men, out of 14,398 offenders who were released from prison in 2005, who had been arrested and charged with a sex-related crime prior to their 2005 release. 1,395 of these offenders faced a court disposition on a docket containing at least one sex-related charge. In those dispositions, 1,150 offenders were convicted: 896 for a sex-related offense, 254 for a non-sexual crime that appeared on the same docket (See Appendix page A-4). In 2007, the CT Legislature established a Risk Assessment Board (HB 7408) to assign “weights to various risk factors including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the offense, the offender's prior offense history, the offender's characteristics, the availability of community supports, whether the offender has indicated- or credible evidence in the record indicates -that the offender will reoffend if released into the community and whether the offender demonstrates a physical condition that minimizes the risk of reoffending, and specifies the risk level to which offenders with various risk assessment scores shall be assigned.” (See Appendix page A-22)

A final caveat This study is based on data for offenders released from prison during 2005. Two years later, in July 2007, two parolees committed one of the most infamous crimes in recent state history, the murderous home invasion at the Petit-family home in Cheshire. As anyone familiar with Connecticut knows, the Petit case cast a tremendous shadow over the criminal justice system. In the months following those crimes, the state’s parole system stopped functioning, the prison system grew by almost 1,000 inmates and remand rates soared. This study did not attempt to relate its findings with changes in the state’s criminal justice system in the months and years following the crimes in Cheshire.

19

Advisory Panel William Anselmo is a Chief Probation Officer with the Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division (CSSD) where he oversees sex offender supervision units. He is responsible for policy development, adherence and implementation and provides support and training to line staff and personnel. Charles Barber is Director of The Connection Institute for Innovative Practice and a Lecturer in Psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine. He has written two widely recognized books on mental health, and co-wrote a chapter in What is Criminology published in 2011 by Oxford University Press. Sergeant Joseph Biela is a 24 year veteran of the Connecticut State Police and Commanding Officer of the Sex Offender Registry Unit. Sergeant Biela has been assigned to the Sex Offender Registry Unit since November 2007 and supervises the operational and administrative functions of the SOR Unit. The Sex Offender Registry Unit is responsible for the State of Connecticut’s Sex Offender Registry public website and for the monitoring and compliance of registry requirements for over 5,400 active registered sex offenders. Laura Cordes is the Executive Director of the Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, a statewide nonprofit coalition of nine community-based sexual assault crisis programs, which provide pre- and post-conviction services to victims of sexual assault and their families. CONNSACS employs a specialized team of advocates who represent victims’ interests in the state’s sex offender supervision and parole special management units. Ms. Cordes serves on Connecticut’s Office of Victim Services Advisory Council, the Commission on the Standardization of the Collection of Evidence in Sexual Assault Investigations, and the Criminal Justice Policy Advisory Commission. Eric Ellison is a Parole Manager and he has served with the Department of Correction since 1989. He currently oversees the Parole and Community Services Division's Special Management Unit. The Unit consists of 10 parole officers and has statewide responsibility for the supervision of 225 sex offenders. Patrick Hynes was appointed as director of the DOC's Best Practices Unit, which was established July 1, 2011. He was previously Director of Programs and Treatment. His responsibility is to assist the DOC to improve the utilization of evidence-based practice. David Rentler is the supervising psychologist at the Board of Pardons and Parole. He conducts clinical and forensic risk assessments, case reviews, and consults with Board Members, the parole community and Board officers and managers on matters relating to the parole decision making process. Randall Wallace is the Program Director for the Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behaviors where he oversees adult sexual offender outpatient treatment and evaluation services, the Day Reporting program for adult sexual offenders transitioning back into the community, Post Conviction Sexual Offender polygraph services, home-based treatment services for juveniles with problem sexual behavior, and the January Center. Dr. Wallace, Psy.D., is a licensed Psychologist and a certified polygraph examiner. He has provided sexual offender treatment and evaluation services for over 20 years.

20

Methodological questions Each year, The Criminal justice Policy & Planning Division at OPM (CJPPD) is mandated to produce an annual study of recidivism among Connecticut prisoners. In October 2011, Mike Lawlor, OPM Under-Secretary decided that the Division would produce an analysis of recidivism rates of sex offenders leaving Connecticut prisons. Within a month, an advisory panel of experts was convened to provide guidance over the project. In short order, it was determined that, at a minimum, the study would need to produce an analysis that tracked sex offenders released from prison for at least a five year period. In order to meet the five years criteria, the study chose to gather criminal justice records on 14,398 male offenders who were released or discharged from a sentence at a Connecticut prison during 2005. In recent years, CJPPD has produced annual studies that track four measures of recidivism among former sentenced prisoners. These measures are 1) new arrests 2) new reincarceration events 3) new convictions, and 4) subsequent returns to prison with a new prison sentence. The analysis has proved to be helpful by establishing baseline recidivism data for the state and by providing insight into some of the factors that contribute to higher rates of recidivism among certain offender sub-groups. In 2009, Department of Correction was able to validate its static assessment instrument, the TPAI, using benchmark recidivism data on 30,000 offenders released in 2004 and 2005. The Data Since the number of female sex offenders is so small, and because the pattern of their criminality is so different from males, female prisoners were not included in the study. The Department of Correction identified all inmates who were released or discharged during 2005 and provided electronic data on each offender’s DOC movement history, sentence history, classification and need scores, and general demographic information. Using this data, the first 2005 prison release or discharge date was identified for each 14,398 offender in the study. This date became the start date against which all subsequent recidivism events would be calculated. Connecticut is fortunate to have an excellent network that connects state criminal justice agencies. Each month, researchers, information specialists and operations personnel from all state criminal justice agencies meet to share information and discuss opportunities for collaborative research.2 Because of this network, Department of Correction data for the 14,398 offenders was easily linked with State Police and Judicial Branch data. The Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division employed probabilistic matching software to 2

Research Workgroup of the state’s Criminal Justice Policy and Advisory Commission meets monthly drawing together a select group of IT, research, and operations staff from the Department of Correction, Court Support Services Division, Court Operations, the Board of Pardons and Parole, the State Police, Parole, the Office of the State Public Defender and the Office of Policy and Management. The group is a key component in insuring smooth communications and substantive collaboration between various criminal justice agencies.

21

produce complete arrest and conviction histories every offender in the study cohort. This data was matched, assembled and delivered within two weeks. Research questions With the data in hand, several methodological questions quickly emerged. The first question concerned the types of events that would be counted as genuine recidivism events. The second question centered on the criteria would be used to identify who, among the 14,398 offenders released in 2005, would be considered as a sex offender. The final major question concerned what criminal charges would be considered as sex crimes. For the first question, it was recognized that calculating recidivism rates for sex offenders required a significantly different approach from the one that would be used in calculating general recidivism rates for all prisoners. With sex offenders, in addition to knowing when or if they return to the system, it is also critical to identify the circumstances associated with each new arrest or conviction. While the public may not be concerned if a sex offender commits a new drug or property offense, they are certainly concerned about any new sexrelated offenses. As a result, it was necessary for the study to differentiate sex-related recidivism events from non-sex-related events. To do so, recidivism events were identified in each of four ways 1) general recidivism for all types of offenses 2) recidivism related to non-compliance with the sex offender registry 3) recidivism related to violations of probation, and 4) recidivism related to new sex offenses. Defining who would be considered as a sex offender for the purposes of the study posed a different set of challenges. The narrowest legal view would have restricted sex-offenders to individuals who been convicted for a sex offense that required registration on the state’s sex-offender registry (SOR). It was clear, however, that significant numbers of offenders, who had participated in sex crimes, had been able to avoid conviction on a sex-related charge through the plea negotiation process. The state’s defense attorneys are well aware that their clients are often best served by pleading guilty to substantive non-sexual charges to avoid conviction for a sexual offense that would require special supervision and inclusion on the state’s Sex Offender Registry. From their perspective, prosecutors cite the difficulty of taking sex cases to trial as a reason why some defendants avoid conviction for sex crimes. The trade-off for prosecutors is that many defendants who avoid a conviction for a sex charge do plead guilty to non-sexual offenses that carry significant sentences. For the purposes of this study, five sex offender subgroups were selected from the general population based on relatively simple criteria. All persons who were arrested and charged with a sex offense prior to their 2005 release from prison constituted the largest group. This group of 1,395 offenders included several hundred men who had been arrested and charged but not convicted for sex offenses. The second group was composed of 896 men, a subset of the 1,395, who had been convicted for a sex offense prior to 2005. Not all of these men were incarcerated for their sex-related crimes. The third group consisted of 746 men who had served a prison sentence for a sex crime prior to being released in 2005. The fourth group, a subgroup of the third group, contained 423 men whose last sentence before they were released in 2005 was for a sex-related offense. The final group consisted of 1,229 22

men who had been classified as sex offenders by the CT Department of Correction because they had a Sex Treatment Score of 2 or higher when they were released in 2005. The following chart illustrates the relationships between each of the five sex offenders groups that were identified by the study. Of the 1,395 men who were arrested on sexrelated offences, only 896 were convicted for sexual offenses.

Significant overlaps existed between offenders in each group. Out of 14,398 offenders that were released or discharged from prison in 2005, 1,712 met at least one criterion as a presumed, though not-necessarily convicted sex offender. The following table illustrates the overlaps.

23

Sex offender membership, by criteria

Criteria met 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

Prior Any sentence Sex treatment Prior arrest for a conviction for for a sex Last sentence score > 1 sex crime a sex crime offense sex related X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1229 1395 896 323 423

Offenders meeting criteria 406 232 7 5 86 18 10 3 179 149 55 2 301 251 6 2 1712

The final major methodological question centered on what offenses would be considered as sex crime in computing sexual recidivism rates. There was no consensus on whether arrests and convictions for offenses like PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE (53A-083) or PROSTITUTION (53A-082) should be included in calculating sexual recidivism. Although there were good, solid arguments for excluding these charges from consideration, the study continued to include prostitution-related crimes as sex offenses that counted as recidivism triggers. In subsequent analyses, CJPPD may reconsider using these charges in calculating sexual recidivism rates. A significant percentage of the sex offenders in the study were rearrested and convicted on charges relating to non-compliance with the state’s Sex Offenders Registry. Although the original charges that required inclusion on the registry were no doubt sexual, this study does not include these registry-compliance offenses as sex offenses in computing sexual recidivism. The large number of registry-related arrests and convictions that appeared in the data made it necessary to break these events out separately. Prior CJPPD recidivism studies contained survival curves for released offenders that showed the rates at which offenders returned to the criminal justice system. In contrast, the recidivism rates reported here were designed to capture any single trigger event that occurred within 5 years (1,826 days) of an offender’s 2005 release from prison. All trigger events that occurred within 5 years were used in summary tables.

24

Sex offender typologies chart

25

Recidivism -1,395 offenders with a prior arrest for a sex crime New arrest rate - 1,395 offenders with a prior arrest history for a sex offense regardless of conviction status

Offender group No prior arrest for sex Prior sex arrest history total

Males 13003 1395 14398

Any new arrest 10229 1089 11318

Any new arrest, rate 78.7% 78.1% 78.6%

Any VOP arrest 4905 646 5551

VOP arrest rate 38% 46% 39%

Any registry arrest 26 216 242

Any new New sex Registry sex crime crime arrest rate arrest arrest rate 0.2% 218 1.7% 15.5% 68 4.9% 1.7% 286 2.0%

New conviction rate - 1,395 offenders with any prior (pre-2005 release) arrest history for a sex crime

Offender group No prior sex arrests Priior sex arrest history total

Males 13003 1395 14398

New sex Any VOP Any Registry New sex crime Any conviction Any VOP conviction registry conviction crime conviction conviction rate conviction rate conviction rate conviction rate 9014 69.3% 4516 34.7% 17 0.1% 86 0.7% 968 69.4% 594 42.6% 129 9.2% 48 3.4% 9982 69.3% 5110 35.5% 146 1.0% 134 0.9%

Return to prison with a new sentence - 1,395 offenders with a prior arrest for a sex-related crime

Offender group No history Prior history Total cohort

Males 13003 1395 14398

Any new prison sentence 6527 637 7164

Any new prison sentence, rate 50.2% 45.7% 49.8%

Any new Any Any new VOP registryVOP sentence, related sentence rate sentence 1411 10.9% 11 172 12.3% 68 1583 11.0% 79

Any registryrelated sentence, rate 0.1% 4.9% 0.5%

New sentence, sex crime 66 33 99

Readmissions to prison w/in 5 years, 1,395 offenders with a prior arrest for a sex offense

Readmit type NEW CHARGES TECH VIOL NEW SENT CRIM VIOL READMIT CIVIL OR FINE RTN ABSCOND RTN ESC CHARGES OTHER RTN W/O PREJ RTN ESC RTN ESC SENT NO PRISON READMIT

Total 5,697 1,348 1,028 940 216 194 163 83 55 36 23 4,615 14,398

No prior No prior Prior sexPrior sexarrest for a arrest for a related arrest related arrest sex crime sex crime, % history history, % 5,006 38.5% 691 49.5% 1,260 9.7% 88 6.3% 947 7.3% 81 5.8% 888 6.8% 52 3.7% 196 1.5% 20 1.4% 184 1.4% 10 0.7% 158 1.2% 5 0.4% 71 0.5% 12 0.9% 53 0.4% 2 0.1% 35 0.3% 1 0.1% 21 0.2% 2 0.1% 4,184 32.2% 431 30.9% 13,003 100.0% 1,395 100.0%

26

New sentence, sex crime, rate 0.5% 2.4% 0.7%

Sex charges associated w/new prison sentences for the 33 offenders in the 1,395-offender group with a prior sex-related arrest

Offender Offender 1 Offender 2 Offender 3 Offender 4 Offender 5 Offender 6 Offender 7 Offender 8 Offender 9 Offender 10 Offender 11 Offender 12 Offender 13 Offender 14 Offender 15 Offender 16 Offender 17 Offender 18 Offender 19 Offender 20 Offender 21 Offender 22 Offender 23 Offender 24 Offender 25 Offender 26 Offender 27 Offender 28

DOC Sex Treatment Score 3 3 4 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 4 3 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 2

Offender 29

1

Offender 30

3

Offender 31

3

Offender 32

1

Offender 33

3

Statute 53-021* 53-021* 53A196D 53A082 53A082 53A186 53A186 53A186 53A186 53A186 53A186 53A071 53A071 53A071 53A071 53A070 53A070 53A070 53A072A 53A072A 53A072A 53A073A 53A073A 53A073A 53A073A 53A073A 53A073A 53A196F 53A070 53A196A 53A072 53-021* 53A070 53A073A 53-021* 53A196E 53A196 53A186 53A073A 53-021* 53A073A

Sentence Offense INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F PROSTITUTION AM PROSTITUTION AM (4 counts) PUBLIC INDECENCY BM PUBLIC INDECENCY BM PUBLIC INDECENCY BM PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts) PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts) PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (3 Counts) SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 3RD DEG DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F EMPLOY MINOR IN OBSCENE PERFORMANCE AF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 2ND DEG F OBSCENITY AS TO MINORS F PUBLIC INDECENCY BM SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE

27

Recidivism data for 896 offenders with a prior conviction for a sex crime New arrest rate - 896 offenders with a prior conviction a sex-related offense

Offender group No prior arrest for sex Prior sex arrest history total

Males 13502 896 14398

Any new arrest 10636 682 11318

Any new arrest, rate 78.8% 76.1% 78.6%

Any VOP arrest 5124 427 5551

VOP arrest rate 38% 48% 39%

Any registry arrest 38 204 242

Any new New sex Registry sex crime crime arrest rate arrest arrest rate 0.3% 250 1.9% 22.8% 36 4.0% 1.7% 286 2.0%

New conviction rate - 896 offenders with any prior (pre-2005 release) conviction for a sex-releated crime

Offender group

Males

No prior conviction (sex) Prior sex-rel. conviction total

13502 896 14398

New sex Any VOP Any Registry New sex crime Any conviction Any VOP conviction registry conviction crime conviction conviction rate conviction rate conviction rate conviction rate 9390 592 9982

69.5% 66.1% 69.3%

4719 391 5110

35.0% 43.6% 35.5%

26 120 146

0.2% 13.4% 1.0%

106 28 134

0.8% 3.1% 0.9%

Return to prison with a new sentence - 896 offenders with a prior conviction for a sex-related crime

Offender group No history Prior history Total cohort

Males 13502 896 14398

Any new prison sentence 6793 371 7164

Any new prison sentence, rate 50.3% 41.4% 49.8%

Any new Any Any new VOP registryVOP sentence, related sentence rate sentence 1489 11.0% 16 94 10.5% 63 1583 11.0% 79

Any registryrelated sentence, rate 0.1% 7.0% 0.5%

New sentence, sex crime 82 17 99

Readmissions to prison w/in 5 years, 896 offenders with a prior conviction for a sex offense

Readmit type NEW CHARGES TECH VIOL NEW SENT CRIM VIOL READMIT CIVIL OR FINE RTN ABSCOND RTN ESC CHARGES OTHER RTN W/O PREJ RTN ESC RTN ESC SENT NO PRISON READMIT

Total Of Inmate No 2005 5697 1348 1028 940 216 194 163 83 55 36 23 4615 14398

No prior No prior conviction for conviction for a sex crime a sex crime, % 5245 38.8% 1294 9.6% 981 7.3% 911 6.7% 205 1.5% 188 1.4% 162 1.2% 73 0.5% 55 0.4% 36 0.3% 23 0.2% 4329 32.1% 13502 100.0%

28

Prior sexrelated conviction history 452 54 47 29 11 6 1 10

286 896

Prior sexrelated conviction history, % 50.4% 6.0% 5.2% 3.2% 1.2% 0.7% 0.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31.9% 100.0%

New sentence, sex crime, rate 0.6% 1.9% 0.7%

Sex charges associated w/new prison sentences for the 17 offenders in the 896-offender group with a prior sex-related conviction

Offender Offender 1 Offender 2 Offender 3 Offender 4 Offender 5 Offender 6 Offender 7 Offender 8 Offender 9 Offender 10 Offender 11 Offender 12 Offender 13 Offender 14 Offender 15 Offender 16

DOC Sex Treatment Score 3 3 4 1 1 3 2 3 2 3 1 4 3 4 4 3

Offender 17

3

Statute 53-021* 53-021* 53A196D 53A082 53A082 53A186 53A186 53A186 53A186 53A071 53A070 53A072A 53A072A 53A072A 53A073A 53A196E 53A196 53-021* 53A073A

Sentence Offense INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F PROSTITUTION AM PROSTITUTION AM (4 counts) PUBLIC INDECENCY BM PUBLIC INDECENCY BM PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts) PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts) SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE (2 counts) ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 2ND DEG F OBSCENITY AS TO MINORS F INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE

Recidivism - 746 offenders with a sentence history for a sex crime New arrest rate - 746 offenders with a DOC sentence history for a sex crime

Offender group No sex sentence Sex sentence history total

Males 13652 746 14398

Any new arrest 10751 567 11318

Any new arrest, rate 78.8% 76.0% 78.6%

Any VOP arrest 5182 369 5551

VOP arrest rate 38.0% 49.5% 38.6%

Any registry arrest 30 212 242

Any new New sex Registry sex crime crime arrest rate arrest arrest rate 0.2% 259 1.9% 28.4% 27 3.6% 1.7% 286 2.0%

New conviction rate - 746 offenders with a DOC sentence history for a sex crime

Offender group No sex sentence Sex sentence history total

Males 13652 746 14398

New sex Any VOP Any Registry New sex crime Any conviction Any VOP conviction registry conviction crime conviction conviction rate conviction rate conviction rate conviction rate 9489 69.5% 4772 35.0% 18 0.1% 114 0.8% 493 66.1% 338 45.3% 128 17.2% 20 2.7% 9982 69.3% 5110 35.5% 146 1.0% 134 0.9%

29

Return to prison with a new sentence - 746 offenders with a prior DOC sentence for a sex-related crime

Offender group No history Prior history Total cohort

Any new prison sentence 6864 300 7164

Males 13652 746 14398

Any new prison sentence, rate 50.3% 40.2% 49.8%

Any new Any Any new VOP registryVOP sentence, related sentence rate sentence 1513 11.1% 10 70 9.4% 69 1583 11.0% 79

Any registryrelated sentence, rate 0.1% 9.2% 0.5%

New sentence, sex crime 86 13 99

Readmissions to prison w/in 5 years, 746 offenders with a sentence history for a sex offense

Readmit type NEW CHARGES TECH VIOL NEW SENT CRIM VIOL READMIT CIVIL OR FINE RTN ABSCOND RTN ESC CHARGES OTHER RTN W/O PREJ RTN ESC RTN ESC SENT NO PRISON READMIT

Total 5697 1348 1028 940 216 194 163 83 55 36 23 4615 14398

Offenders w/a Offenders w/a No sentence No sentence sentence sentence history for sex history for sex history for sex history for sex offenses offenses, % offenses offenses, % 5301 38.8% 396 53.1% 1303 9.5% 45 6.0% 993 7.3% 35 4.7% 921 6.7% 19 2.5% 211 1.5% 5 0.7% 189 1.4% 5 0.7% 163 1.2% 0.0% 75 0.5% 8 1.1% 55 0.4% 0.0% 36 0.3% 0.0% 23 0.2% 0.0% 4382 32.1% 233 31.2% 13652 100.0% 746 100.0%

Sex charges associated w/new prison sentences for the 13 offenders in the 746-offender group with a sex-related sentence history

Offender Offender 1 Offender 2 Offender 3 Offender 4 Offender 5 Offender 6 Offender 7 Offender 8 Offender 9 Offender 10 Offender 11

DOC Sex Treatment Score 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3

Offender 12

3

Offender 13

3

Statute 53A196D 53A186 53A186 53-021* 53A072A 53A073A 53-021* 53A071 53A072A 53A072A 53-021* 53A073A 53A196E 53A196 53-021* 53A073A

Sentence Offense POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts) PUBLIC INDECENCY BM INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 2ND DEG F OBSCENITY AS TO MINORS F INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE

30

F (2 counts)

F

F

F

New sentence, sex crime, rate 0.6% 1.7% 0.7%

Recidivism - 423 offenders whose last sentence was for a sex crime New arrest rate - 423 offenders whose last sentence was a sex crime

Offender group No sex sentence Sex sentence history total

Males 13975 423 14398

Any new arrest 11026 292 11318

Any new arrest, rate 78.9% 69.0% 78.6%

Any VOP arrest 5341 210 5551

VOP arrest rate 38.2% 49.6% 38.6%

Any registry arrest 133 109 242

Any new New sex Registry sex crime crime arrest rate arrest arrest rate 1.0% 270 1.9% 25.8% 16 3.8% 1.7% 286 2.0%

New conviction rate - 423 offenders whose last sentence was sex-related

Offender group No sex sentence Sex sentence history

males 13975 423 14398

New sex Any VOP Any Registry New sex crime Any conviction Any VOP conviction registry conviction crime conviction conviction rate conviction rate conviction rate conviction rate 9742 69.7% 4919 35.2% 91 0.7% 123 0.9% 240 56.7% 191 45.2% 55 13.0% 11 2.6% 9982 69.3% 5110 35.5% 146 1.0% 134 0.9%

Return to prison with a new sentence - 423 offenders whose last sentence prior to release was for a sex-related crime

Offender group No history Prior history Total cohort

Males 13975 423 14398

Any new prison sentence 7044 120 7164

Any new prison sentence, rate 50.4% 28.4% 49.8%

Any new Any Any new VOP registryVOP sentence, related sentence rate sentence 1553 11.1% 45 30 7.1% 34 1583 11.0% 79

Any registryrelated sentence, rate 0.3% 8.0% 0.5%

New sentence, sex crime 90 9 99

Readmissions to prison w/in 5 years, 423 offenders whose last sentence was sex-related

Readmit type NEW CHARGES TECH VIOL NEW SENT CRIM VIOL READMIT CIVIL OR FINE RTN ABSCOND RTN ESC CHARGES OTHER RTN W/O PREJ RTN ESC RTN ESC SENT NO PRISON READMIT

Total 5697 1348 1028 940 216 194 163 83 55 36 23 4615 14398

Last sentence Last sentence not sexnot sexrelated related, % 5480 39.2% 1327 9.5% 1013 7.2% 934 6.7% 213 1.5% 193 1.4% 163 1.2% 78 0.6% 55 0.4% 36 0.3% 23 0.2% 4460 31.9% 13975 100.0%

31

Last sentence was sexrelated 217 21 15 6 3 1 5

155 423

Last sentence was sexrelated, % 51.3% 5.0% 3.5% 1.4% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.6% 100.0%

New sentence, sex crime, rate 0.6% 2.1% 0.7%

Sex charges associated w/new prison sentences for the 9 offenders in the 423-offender group whose last sentence in 2005 was for a sex-related offense

Offender Offender 1 Offender 2 Offender 3 Offender 4 Offender 5 Offender 6 Offender 7 Offender 8 Offender 9

DOC Sex Treatment Score 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3

Statute 53A196D 53A072A 53A073A 53-021* 53A071 53A072A 53A072A 53-021* 53-021* 53A073A

Sentence Offense POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F (2 counts) INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE

Recidivism - 1,229 offenders with Sex Treatment Score of 2 or higher New arrest rate - 1,229 offenders with DOC sex treatment scores of S-2 or higher

Sex treatment score 0 S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 Treatment Sscore >1 total

Males 265 12904 100 983 144 2 1229 14398

Any new arrest 136 10222 81 766 113 960 11318

Any new arrest, rate 51.3% 79.2% 81.0% 77.9% 78.5% 0.0% 78.1% 78.6%

Any VOP arrest 48 4937 38 448 80 566 5551

VOP arrest rate 18.1% 38.3% 38.0% 45.6% 55.6% 0.0% 46.1% 38.6%

Any registry arrest 12 2 195 33 230 242

Any new New sex Registry sex crime crime arrest rate arrest arrest rate 0.0% 4 1.5% 0.1% 225 1.7% 2.0% 10 10.0% 19.8% 42 4.3% 22.9% 5 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 18.7% 57 4.6% 1.7% 286 2.0%

New conviction rate - 1,229 offenders with DOC sex treatment scores of S-2 or higher

Sex treatment score 0 S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 STS>1 total

males 265 12904 100 983 144 2 1229 14398

New sex Any VOP Any Registry New sex crime Any conviction Any VOP conviction registry conviction crime conviction conviction rate conviction rate conviction rate conviction rate 107 40.4% 45 17.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9040 70.1% 4537 35.2% 7 0.1% 97 0.8% 71 71.0% 34 34.0% 1 1.0% 8 8.0% 660 67.1% 420 42.7% 116 11.8% 26 2.6% 104 72.2% 74 51.4% 22 15.3% 3 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 835 67.9% 528 43.0% 139 11.3% 37 3.0% 9982 69.3% 5110 35.5% 146 1.0% 134 0.9%

32

Return to prison with a new sentence - 1,229 offenders with 2005 sex treatment scores higher than 1

Offender group STS = 0 or 1 STS = 2 through 5 Total cohort

Males 13169 1229 14398

Any new prison sentence 6622 542 7164

Any new prison sentence, rate 50.3% 44.1% 49.8%

Any new Any Any new VOP registryVOP sentence, related sentence rate sentence 1445 11.0% 6 138 11.2% 73 1583 11.0% 79

Any registryrelated sentence, rate 0.0% 5.9% 0.5%

New sentence, sex crime 71 28 99

New sentence, sex crime, rate 0.5% 2.3% 0.7%

Return to prison with a new sentence - offenders by sex treatment score

Offender group No score STS = 1 STS = 2 STS = 3 STS = 4 STS = 5 Total cohort STS = 2 through 5

Males 265 12904 100 983 144 2 14398 1229

Any new prison sentence 59 6563 55 431 56 0

7164 542

Any new prison sentence, rate 22.3% 50.9% 55.0% 43.8% 38.9% 0.0% 49.8% 44.1%

Any new Any Any new VOP registryVOP sentence, related sentence rate sentence 8 3.0% 1437 11.1% 6 12 12.0% 113 11.5% 65 13 9.0% 8 0.0% 1583 11.0% 79 138 11.2% 73

Any registryrelated sentence, rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.6% 5.6% 0.0% 0.5% 5.9%

New sentence, sex crime 71 6 18 4 99 28

Readmissions to prison w/in 5 years, 1,229 offenders with sex treatment scores above 1

Readmit type NEW CHARGES TECH VIOL NEW SENT CRIM VIOL READMIT CIVIL OR FINE RTN ABSCOND RTN ESC CHARGES OTHER RTN W/O PREJ RTN ESC RTN ESC SENT NO PRISON READMIT

Total Of Inmate No 2005 5697 1348 1028 940 216 194 163 83 55 36 23 4615 14398

Sex treatment Sex treatment Sex treatment score lower score lower scores: 2 than 2 than 2, % through 5 5043 38.3% 654 1292 9.8% 56 971 7.4% 57 908 6.9% 32 199 1.5% 17 179 1.4% 15 163 1.2% 71 0.5% 12 55 0.4% 36 0.3% 23 0.2% 4229 32.1% 386 13169 100.0% 1229

33

Sex treatment scores: 2 through 5, % 53.2% 4.6% 4.6% 2.6% 1.4% 1.2% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31.4% 100.0%

New sentence, sex crime, rate 0.0% 0.6% 6.0% 1.8% 2.8% 0.0% 0.7% 2.3%

Readmissions to prison w/in 5 years, by sex treatment score

Readmit type NEW CHARGES TECH VIOL NEW SENT CRIM VIOL READMIT CIVIL OR FINE RTN ABSCOND RTN ESC CHARGES OTHER RTN W/O PREJ RTN ESC RTN ESC SENT NO PRISON READMIT Total NEW CHARGES TECH VIOL NEW SENT CRIM VIOL NO PRISON READMIT

Total 5697 1348 1028 940 216 194 163 83 55 36 23 4615 14398 % 39.6% 9.4% 7.1% 6.5% 32.1%

Treatment score null or S1 5043 1292 971 908 199 179 163 71 55 36 23 4229 13169 % 38.3% 9.8% 7.4% 6.9% 32.1%

Treatment score: S2 54 7 5 1 1 2

Treatment score: S3 519 42 47 27 16 11

Treatment score: S4 81 7 5 4

1

9

2

29 100 % 54.0% 7.0% 5.0% 1.0% 29.0%

312 983 % 52.8% 4.3% 4.8% 2.7% 31.7%

43 144 % 56.3% 4.9% 3.5% 2.8% 29.9%

34

Treatment score: S5

2

2 2 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Sex charges associated w/new prison sentences for the 28 offenders in the 1,229-offender group whose sex treatment score were higher than S1

Offender Offender 1 Offender 2 Offender 3 Offender 4 Offender 5 Offender 6 Offender 7 Offender 8 Offender 9 Offender 10 Offender 11 Offender 12 Offender 13 Offender 14 Offender 15 Offender 16 Offender 17 Offender 18 Offender 19 Offender 20 Offender 21 Offender 22 Offender 23 Offender 24 Offender 25

DOC Sex Treatment Score 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 2

Offender 26

3

Offender 27

3

Offender 28

3

Statute 53A196D 53A186 53A070 53A186 53A088 53A070 53A186 53A186 53-021* 53A073A 53A072A 53A196D 53A186 53A070 53A186 53A070 53A186 53-021* 53A073A 53A071 53-021* 53A071 53A072A 53A072A 53A072 53A070 53A196F 53A196A 53-021* 53A073A 53A196E 53A196 53-021* 53A073A

Sentence Offense POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts) SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F PUBLIC INDECENCY BM PROMOTING PROSTITUTION, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F (2 counts) PUBLIC INDECENCY BM PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (3 Counts) INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F (2 counts) SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F PUBLIC INDECENCY BM SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F PUBLIC INDECENCY BM SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F PUBLIC INDECENCY BM (2 Counts) INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 3RD DEG DF EMPLOY MINOR IN OBSCENE PERFORMANCE AF INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 2ND DEG F OBSCENITY AS TO MINORS F INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE

35

SEXUAL ASSAULT, 1ST DEGREE F SEXUAL ASSAULT 1ST DEGREE - AGGRVTD F RAPE, FIRST DEGREE BF Sub-total

Offense

SEX ASSAULT, SECOND DEGREE F RAPE, SECOND DEGREE CF Sub-total Other sex assault SEXUAL ASSAULT, 3RD DEGREE DF SEXUAL ASSAULT, 4TH DEGREE Sub-total Crimes against minors INJURY OR RISK OF INJURY TO MINOR F EMPLOY MINOR IN OBSCENE PERFORMANCE AF OBSCENITY AS TO MINORS F Sub-total Prostitution related PROSTITUTION AM PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE AM PROMOTING PROSTITUTION, 2ND DEGREE CF PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE FROM A MV PROMOTING PROSTITUTION, 3RD DEGREE DF Sub-total Child pornography POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY F ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 3RD DEG DF ILL POSSESS CHILD PORN 2ND DEG F Sub-total Indecency/voyeurism PUBLIC INDECENCY BM Sub-total Total Offenders in group

Sex assault 2

Crime group Sex assault 1

5

10

36 11 11 48 1,395

4 6 6 81 13,003

5

5

1 1 1 3

1 3

2 1 1 1 4 9

10

3 9 12

2 11 13

1 1 7

4

4

1 6

5

19 1 20

19

17 2

11 11 104 13,502

5

1 4

2 1 1 1 4 9

13

1

12

2 17 19

22 1 23

21 2 1 24

No prior No prior Sex arrest sex sex arrest history conviction

Sex-offenses, by crime type, resulting in new prison sentences

6 6 25 896

1 2

1

5

5

1 4

3

3 3 6

1

1

1

1

Sex conviction history

14 14 111 13,652

5

1 4

7 1 1 1 4 14

11

1

10

2 17 19

22 1 23

22 2 1 25

No sexrelated DOC sentence

3 3 18 746

1 2

1

0

1 6

5

3 3 6

1

1

0

DOC sex releated sentence history

17 17 118 13,975

1 4 1 6

7 1 1 1 4 14

1 1 13

11

2 18 20

22 1 23

22 2 1 25

Last DOC sentence not sexrelated

11 423

1

1

0

4

4

3 2 5

1

1

0

6 6 89 13,169

3

3

7 1 1 1 3 13

9

9

2 16 18

21 1 22

18

16 2

Last DOC sentence Sex sextreatment related score <2

11 11 40 1,229

2 1 1 4

1 1

1 1 8

6

3 4 7

2

2

1 7

6

Sex treatment scores: 2 through 5

17 17 129 14,398

2 4 1 7

7 1 1 1 4 14

1 1 17

15

5 20 25

23 1 24

22 2 1 25

All males

Summary of new prison sentences for sex crimes, by sex offender sub group

General criminality among offenders who were released in 2005 Slightly more than 5% of the 14,398 male Sentences by major offense type, 2005 release cohort Males Rate: sentenced offenders who left Connecticut Sentenced offender 14398 100.0% prisons in 2005 had ever served a prison Violation of probation 7,108 49.4% sentence in the state for a sex-related Drug offenders 6,622 46.0% DUI offenses 2,802 19.5% offense. Among the prisoners who left Burglary charges 2,304 16.0% prison in 2005, 49.4% had served at least Robbery 1 or Robbery 2 1,101 7.7% one sentence for violating the terms of their Viol. of a restrain. or prot. order 747 5.2% Any sex-releated offense 746 5.2% probation. Forty-six percent (46%) of Sex assault 1 or Rape 195 1.4% offenders had served time in prison for a Illegal sexual contact - minor 196 1.4% drug charge. Nineteen percent (19%) of offenders released in 2005 had served a prior sentence for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Among the 746 offenders who had ever served a sentence for a sex-related offense, 195 had been convicted for Sexual Assault 1 or Rape. One hundred ninety-six (196) had been convicted for Illegal sexual contact with a minor (Risk of Injury 53-021*). The sentence histories of offenders that had ever been convicted for one of three specific sex crimes (Sex Assault 1, Risk of Injury to a Minor (sexual), and Public Indecency) were analyzed to determine whether significant differences could be detected in the general pattern of non-sexual criminal activity between different sex offender types. Conviction for one of these offenses was used as a proxy to distinguish rapists from child molesters and non-contact exhibitionists. The analysis did identify significant differences in the overall pattern of criminality for different offender types. Among the 35 offenders who had been convicted for public indecency (exhibitionists) the incidence of drug- or alcohol-related offenses was much higher than for the other two groups. Exhibitionists also had the highest rates of sentencing for Violations of Probation (80%). Among the 195 offenders who had been convicted for Sex Assault 1 (rapists), 29.2% had also served a prison sentence for a burglary-related crime; 13.3% had served a sentence for robbery. The high incidence of burglaries and robberies Offenses in common among 746 offenders with a sentence history invovling a sex crime Risk of among this injury to a group Risk of injury minor Sexual Public to a minor (sexual), Sexual assault 1, Public indecency, indicates both (sexual) % assault 1 % indecency % a heightened Offenders with sentence histories for 196 100.0% 195 100.0% 35 100.0% Drug offenses 24 12.2% 53 27.2% 11 31.4% willingness to DUI offenses 13 6.6% 20 10.3% 5 14.3% use force and Burglary offenses 8 4.1% 57 29.2% 6 17.1% Robberies 5 2.6% 26 13.3% 0 0.0% overstep Violation of probation 68 34.7% 115 59.0% 28 80.0% boundaries. Court order violation* 4 2.0% 5 2.6% 2 5.7% Among offenders convicted for Risk of Injury to a Minor (sexual), only 4.1% had served sentences for burglary and only 2.6% has been convicted of a robbery. Among the entire population of male prisoners released in 2005, 16% had been convicted of burglary-related charges and less than 8% had been convicted for a robbery. 37

Sex offenders, parole and special parole The use of special parole for sex offenders in 2005

Prior arrest on a sex-related charge Prior conviction on a sex-related charge Any prior sex-related sentence Last sentence on a sex-related charge Sex Treatment score 2 through 5 Any Sex offender flag

Offenders Sex offenders discharged Sex offenders as a percent to special discharged to of offenders Offenders parole in special parole discharged to in group 2005 in 2005 special parole 1395 358 38 10.6% 896 358 31 8.7% 746 358 31 8.7% 423 358 15 4.2% 1229 358 43 12.0% 1712 358 52 14.5%

Percentage of sex offenders discharged to special parole 2.7% 3.5% 4.2% 3.5% 3.5% 3.0%

In 2005, 1,776 offenders were released from prison to parole. Less than 10% of all offenders release to parole had sex treatment scores higher than 1. The following table shows the remand rates for offenders by their DOC Sex treatment scores. Parolee prison readmits by DOC Sex Treatment Score, first prison readmission DOC Sex treatment score Released to First prison readmit parole in 2005* S:1 S:2 S:3 S:4 Technical violation 413 370 5 34 4 Criminal violation 388 364 1 21 2 Readmit - pre-trial 359 324 3 24 8 Absconder returned 115 106 1 7 1 New prison sentence 47 45 1 1 No readmission w/in 5 years 424 384 1 29 10 All other retuns 30 27 0 2 1 Total 1776 1620 11 118 27 First prison readmit, % Technical violation 23.3% 22.8% 45.5% 28.8% 14.8% Criminal violation 21.8% 22.5% 9.1% 17.8% 7.4% Readmit - pre-trial 20.2% 20.0% 27.3% 20.3% 29.6% Absconder returned 6.5% 6.5% 9.1% 5.9% 3.7% New prison sentence 2.6% 2.8% 0.0% 0.8% 3.7% No readmission w/in 5 years 23.9% 23.7% 9.1% 24.6% 37.0% All other retuns 1.7% 1.7% 0.0% 1.7% 3.7% Total, % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% * Two offenders released to parole had no sex treatment scores. Neither was readmitted.

38

S:2 through S:4 43 24 35 9 2 40 3 156 27.6% 15.4% 22.4% 5.8% 1.3% 25.6% 1.9% 100.0%

Age at first arrest for a sex crime All prior arrest records for the entire 2005-release cohort was collected and analyzed to determine whether any relationship existed between the offender’s age and the crime type. The data was used to identify the first sex offense-related arrest in each offender’s criminal history. The data was then grouped comparing the age distribution of offenders by offense type. Age at first arrest for a sex crime, by arrest charge Arrest charge Age at first sex crime arrest 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 and older Total Under 25 Under 25, % 25 to 39 25 to 39, % Over 39 Over 39, %

Sex Assault 1 7 81 90 63 66 48 19 4 5 2 2 0 387 178 46% 177 46% 32 8%

Sex assault 2 1 80 61 23 18 17 8 4 4 0 1 1 218 142 65% 58 27% 18 8%

Sex Assault 4 4 78 60 34 41 35 25 11 9 4 2 3 306 142 46% 110 36% 54 18%

Ill. Sexual Contact 5 91 56 28 31 30 20 6 10 5 4 3 289 152 53% 89 31% 48 17%

Sex crimes against minors, Public grouped* Indecency 6 0 149 16 100 18 53 22 60 33 52 17 39 18 9 6 17 1 7 1 8 0 5 2 505 134 255 34 50% 25% 165 72 33% 54% 85 28 17% 21%

* Includes illegal sexual contact, sex assault 1- minor, sex assault 2 - minor, sex assault 4 - minor, enticing a minor & promoting or employing a minor in an obscene performance

Public Indecency was the only sexual offense where men under the age of 25 made up less that 45% of the offenders. Sixty-five percent of men accused of Sexual Assault 2 were under the age of 25. The data is based on the criminal arrest histories of the 1,395 offenders who had a prior arrest for a sex-related offense. Among offenders arrested for Sexual Assault 1, the peak age group was between the ages of 20 to 24. Among offenders arrested for Sexual Assault 2, the peak age group was 15 to 19. The 15 to 19 age group was also the peak age group among offenders arrested for crimes against children. Among offenders arrested for public indecency – the peak age group was 30 to 34.

39

Age at first sex offense resulting in a prison sentence Seven hundred forty-six men (746) left prison in 2005 who had served at least one sentence for a sex offense in their past. Almost half (47%) had committed the offense as young men under the age of 25. Only 8% were over the age of 39 when they committed the crime that resulted in a prison sentence. Age at first sex offense resulting in a prison sentence and age at 2005 release, 746 sex offenders

While most sentenced sex-offenders were sentenced to prison for their sex offenses as young men, the sentenced sex offenders who left prison in 2005 were significantly older. Only 20% percent of sex offenders who left prison in 2005 were younger than 25. There are two reasons for this disparity 1) men who commit serious sexual crimes generally receive long sentences, and 2) many offenders with a sex sentence history continue to return to prison for new, non-sexual crimes. Among the 746 offenders identified here, only 423 were completing a sentence for a sex crime when they were released in 2005.

Age at 2005 Age at 2005 release release, % 0 0% 24 3% 125 17% 89 12% 81 11% 120 16% 129 17% 90 12% 38 5% 24 3% 11 1% 15 2% 0% 746 100%

Age at first sex offense resulting in a prison sentence 746 offenders with a sex-related sentence history

200 182

150

Age at first Age at first offense offense, % 10 to 14 9 1% 15 to 19 182 24% 20 to 24 164 22% 25 to 29 106 14% 30 to 34 106 14% 35 to 39 77 10% 40 to 44 47 6% 45 to 49 23 3% 50 to 54 12 2% 55 to 59 9 1% 60 to 64 4 1% 65 and older 5 1% No data 2 0% 746 100%

164

100

106

106 77

50

47

9

23

12

9

50 to 54

55 to 59

4

5

2

0

10 to 14

15 to 19

20 to 24

25 to 29

30 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 44

45 to 49

60 to 65 and No data 64 older

Age at 2005 release, 746 offenders with a sex-related sentence history

160 140 120

125

100 80

120 89

60

129 90

81

40 20

0

24

10 to 14

15 to 19

38

24

11

15

0

20 to 24

25 to 29

30 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 44

40

45 to 49

50 to 54

55 to 59

60 to 65 and No data 64 older

The Connecticut Risk Assessment Board Sec. 54-259a. Risk Assessment Board. Development and use of risk assessment scale. Report. (a) There is established a Risk Assessment Board consisting of the Commissioner of Correction, the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services, the Commissioner of Public Safety, the Chief State's Attorney, the Chief Public Defender, the chairperson of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, the executive director of the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Department and the chairpersons and ranking members of the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the judiciary and public safety, or their designees, a victim advocate with experience working with sexual assault victims and sexual offenders appointed by the Governor, a forensic psychiatrist with experience in the treatment of sexual offenders appointed by the Governor and a person trained in the identification, assessment and treatment of sexual offenders appointed by the Governor. (b) The board shall develop a risk assessment scale that assigns weights to various risk factors including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the offense, the offender's prior offense history, the offender's characteristics, the availability of community supports, whether the offender has indicated or credible evidence in the record indicates that the offender will reoffend if released into the community and whether the offender demonstrates a physical condition that minimizes the risk of reoffending, and specifies the risk level to which offenders with various risk assessment scores shall be assigned. (c) The board shall use the risk assessment scale to assess the risk of reoffending of each person subject to registration under this chapter, including incarcerated offenders who are within one year of their estimated release date, and assign each such person a risk level of high, medium or low. (d) The board shall use the risk assessment scale to determine which offenders should be prohibited from residing within one thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school or a facility providing child day care services, as defined in section 19a-77. (e) Not later than October 1, 2007, the board shall submit a report to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly on the judiciary in accordance with section 11-4a setting forth its findings and recommendations concerning: (1) Whether information about sexual offenders assigned a risk level of high, medium or low should be made available to the public through the Internet; (2) the types of information about sexual offenders that should be made available to the public through the Internet which may include, but not be limited to, (A) the name, residential address, physical description and photograph of the registrant, (B) the offense or offenses of which the registrant was convicted or found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect that required registration under this chapter, (C) a brief description of the facts and circumstances of such offense or offenses, (D) the criminal record of the registrant with respect to any prior convictions or findings of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect for the commission of an offense requiring 41

registration under this chapter, and (E) the name of the registrant's supervising correctional, probation or parole officer, and contact information for such officer; (3) whether any of the persons assigned a high risk level by the board pursuant to subsection (c) of this section meets the criteria for civil commitment pursuant to section 17a-498; (4) whether additional restrictions should be placed on persons subject to registration under this chapter such as curfews and intensive monitoring on certain holidays; (5) whether persons convicted of a sexual offense who pose a high risk of reoffending should be required to register under this chapter regardless of when they were convicted or released into the community; and (6) whether persons determined to be guilty with adjudication withheld in any other state or jurisdiction of any crime the essential elements of which are substantially the same as any of the crimes specified in subdivisions (2), (5) and (11) of section 54-250 should be required to register under this chapter.

Special Management Unit – DOC Community Services Division The Parole and Community Services Division’s Special Management Unit (SMU) is responsible for the statewide supervision of approximately 225 paroled sex offenders. The unit employs a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach to manage this population with a mission to protect the public and increase the likelihood of successful reintegration for offenders requiring specialized supervision and treatment for problem sexual behavior. Since 2005, the unit has experienced a doubling of its supervised sex offender population, primarily due to a steady increase in special parole cases. In response, the unit’s staffing levels were also doubled over the past five years from five parole officers to the current compliment of ten. These specially trained parole officers collaborate closely with key stakeholders to form supervision teams to advance collective public safety goals. These stakeholders include sex offender treatment providers and polygraph examiners from The Connection Inc., Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior; victim advocates from Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services; state police from the Connecticut State Police Sex Offender Registry Unit and Computer Crime Unit; and local law enforcement responsible for matters relating to registered sex offenders and sexual assault investigations. The specialized techniques and interventions utilized by SMU include the use of validated sex offender risk assessments; individualized case management plans; offense specific cognitivebehavioral sex offender treatment; intensive supervision strategies including frequent compliance checks, search and seizure, GPS monitoring, and surveillance; toxicology testing; registration and notification; victim advocacy; computer monitoring and computer forensic examinations. SMU officers routinely conduct compliance checks with local law enforcement in jurisdictions throughout the state to monitor adherence to sex offender registration requirements, parole conditions, and sex offender treatment restrictions. Parole officers and police visit sex offenders at

42

their residence and place of employment. During these compliance checks, SMU officers assess offenders for the presence or absence of dynamic risk factors related to sexual offending. Cognitive-behavioral sex offender treatment is an empirically validated intervention required of the offenders supervised by SMU. This approach has been shown to produce favorable reductions in sexual and general recidivism when combined with parole supervision. Groups are held in numerous locations throughout the state including district parole offices in Hartford, New Haven, Waterbury, and Bridgeport. SMU’s intensive supervision model includes monitoring an average of 90 sex offenders with Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. Active GPS units are used exclusively to enhance supervision and afford parole officers the ability locate offenders in a timely manner. GPS tracking information is routinely shared with law enforcement for investigations. Stable housing is recognized by SMU as critical to the successful reintegration of sex offenders. Housing instability has been widely shown to increase general and sexual recidivism. While the placement of sex offenders remains a constant challenge for this unit, no sex offenders have been placed in homeless shelters in the past five years while under SMU supervision.

The Collaborative Model in Connecticut Connecticut has become a national leader in developing and implementing a systemic, collaborative approach to the management and treatment sexual offenders in the community. This approach links state supervising agencies (CSSD’s Office of Adult Probation and DOC’s Office of Parole), victim advocates (CONNSACS) and a non-profit provider of sex offender treatment and programming (The Connection, Inc.) in the design and oversight of a supervision plan for each offender. The primary parties in this collaborative approach include: the supervising officer, the evaluator/treatment provider, a polygraph examiner and a victim advocate. Each of the party brings unique expertise and perspective to the collaboration, which greatly helps enhance offender supervision and community safety. Supervising Officers: Probation and Parole officers have special training and experience in supervising sexual offenders. Some of their roles include regular office and field visits, social support meetings, employment and residency approvals, monitoring compliance with sex offender registry and imposing of alternative sanctions when needed. Evaluator/Therapist: The evaluators provide risk assessments using the most advanced risk assessment tools and protocols. This information is then used by the treatment providers to decide on the intervention that will address the risk factors specific to each client. Polygraph Examiners: Polygraph examiners are trained in Post Conviction Sex Offender Testing (PCSOT). The typical sexual offender receives a minimum of one polygraph every six months in one of the three types of exams, which include: 1) Sexual Offense History; 2) Denial of convicted sexual crime; and 3) Compliance with supervision standards (called a Maintenance exam). 43

Victim Advocates: Victim Advocates provide beneficial information to the victim and victimâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s family. Some examples include: notification and support services to victims when offenders are released onto parole and/or probation and appropriate referrals for services for victims and offender family members. While it is the sole authority of the supervising officer to make decisions regarding housing placement, offender employment, appropriate social contacts, etc., each team member contributes information that contributes to the decision making process.

44

Glossary CMHC – Correctional Managed Health Care, the CT DOC contracts with the University of Connecticut to provide health service for its prisoners. For over a decade CMHC has provided sex-offenders treatment and assessment services in Connecticut’s prisons. The Connection – The Connection, Inc. is a Connecticut non-profit organization that provides a wide range of programs and services in the state. The agency provides assessments, treatment and programs for sex offenders under the supervision of the offices of adult probation and parole. CONNSACS – Acronym for Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, a statewide coalition of individual sexual assault crisis programs. In addition to providing victim assistance, community education and public policy advocacy, CONNSACS works closely with the offices of Parole and Probation to insure the voice of the victim is present in issues relating to sex offenders in the state. Discharge from prison – Prisoners “discharge” from prison at the completion of their prison sentence. Prisoners who leave prison but remain under the supervision of Department of Correction, in a community program, are said to have been released. EOS – Acronym for end-of-sentence. Prisoners who reach the end of their sentences are discharged. Paraphilias – Conditions where an individual becomes sexually aroused or gratified by fantasizing about or engaging in behavior that is atypical or extreme. Common paraphilias include exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism and necrophilia. In the past paraphilias were referred to as perversions. Parole – Parole is a discretionary release program available to most prisoners serving sentences greater than two years. Depending on the crime, parole-eligible offenders must serve at least 50% or, in the case of a violent offense, 85% of their sentence. Perspective parolee cases are considered by three-member panels conducted by the Board of Pardons and Parole. Offenders on parole are supervised by parole officers who have the authority remand them to prison for violating the conditions of their release. Probation – Probation is a court-mandated and court-supervised form of community supervision for offenders. An offender may be sentenced to a term of probation in lieu of a prison sentence or the court may order a split-sentence, which involves a term of incarceration followed by a period of probation. Unlike parole officers, probation officers are required to return the offender to court before a probationer can be remanded to prison. Violation of Probation (53a032) is the most common charge among prisoners incarcerated in the state’s prisons. Public indecency (Sec. 53a-186: Class B misdemeanor) A person is guilty of public indecency when he performs any of the following acts in a public place: 1. An act of sexual intercourse as defined in subdivision (2) of section 53a-65; or 2. a lewd exposure of the body with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of the person; or

45

3. a lewd fondling or caress of the body of another person. For the purposes of this section, "public place" means any place where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by others. Recidivism – for the purposes of this study, four general measures of recidivism will be considered: 1) new arrests 2) new convictions 3) any reincarceration, and 4) returns to prison with a new prison sentence. For arrests, convictions and new prison sentences, separate recidivism rates will be considered for any new offenses, VOP-related offenders, SOR-related offenses, and new sex offenses. Release from prison – Prisoners who leave prison but remain under the supervision of Department of Correction, in a community program, are said to have been released. Prisoners who have completed their prison sentences are said to have discharged. Remand – Offenders who are completing their prison sentences in the community, under the supervision of the DOC Parole Division, are required to abide by a variety of general and specific conditions governing their community release. Violation of these conditions can result in an immediate return to prison, potentially, until the end of the offender’s prison sentence. Offenders who are returned t prison in this way are said to be remanded. Injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children. Sale of children ( Sec. 53-21.) Any person who 1. willfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child, or 2. has contact with the intimate parts, as defined in section 53a-65, of a child under the age of sixteen years or subjects a child under sixteen years of age to contact with the intimate parts of such person, in a sexual and indecent manner likely to impair the health or morals of such child, or 3. permanently transfers the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration or acquires or receives the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years from another person upon payment of money or other valuable consideration to such other person or a third person, except in connection with an adoption proceeding that complies with the provisions of chapter 803, shall be guilty of a class C felony for a violation of subdivision (1) or (3) of this subsection and a class B felony for a violation of subdivision (2) of this subsection In the criminal justice system, the Risk of Injury charge has two parts: one (Subsection 2) contains a sexual criminal component. Persons convicted on for subsection 2 are required to register with the Sex Offender Registry. In DOC data systems, subsection 2 of this statute is coded as 53-021* - Injury or Risk of Injury to Minor. Sexual assault in the first degree (Sec. 53a-70: Class B felony) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree when such person 1. compels another person to engage in sexual intercourse by the use of force against such other person or a third person, or by the threat of use of force against such other person or 46

against a third person which reasonably causes such person to fear physical injury to such person or a third person, or 2. engages in sexual intercourse with another person and such other person is under 13 years of age and the actor is more than two years older than such person, or 3. commits sexual assault in the second degree as provided in section 53a-71 and in the commission of such offense is aided by two or more other persons actually present, or 4. engages in sexual intercourse with another person and such other person is mentally incapacitated to the extent that such other person is unable to consent to such sexual intercourse. Sexual assault in the second degree (Sec. 53a-71: Class C felony) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree when such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person and: 1. Such other person is thirteen years of age or older but under sixteen years of age and the actor is more than two years older than such person; or 2. such other person is mentally defective to the extent that such other person is unable to consent to such sexual intercourse; or 3. such other person is physically helpless; or 4. such other person is less than eighteen years old and the actor is such person's guardian or otherwise responsible for the general supervision of such person's welfare; or 5. such other person is in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over such other person; or 6. the actor is a psychotherapist and such other person is (A) a patient of the actor and the sexual intercourse occurs during the psychotherapy session, (B) a patient or former patient of the actor and such patient or former patient is emotionally dependent upon the actor, or (C) a patient or former patient of the actor and the sexual intercourse occurs by means of therapeutic deception; or 7. the actor accomplishes the sexual intercourse by means of false representation that the sexual intercourse is for a bona fide medical purpose by a health care professional; or 8. the actor is a school employee and such other person is a student enrolled in a school in which the actor works or a school under the jurisdiction of the local or regional board of education which employs the actor. Sexual assault in the third degree (Sec. 53a-72a: Class D felony) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the third degree when such person 1. compels another person to submit to sexual contact (A) by the use of force against such other person or a third person, or (B) by the threat of use of force against such other person or against a third person, which reasonably causes such other person to fear physical injury to himself or herself or a third person, or 2. engages in sexual intercourse with another person whom the actor knows to be related to him or her within any of the degrees of kindred specified in section 46b-21. Sexual assault in the fourth degree (Sec. 53a-73a.: Class A misdemeanor) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the fourth degree when: 1. Such person intentionally subjects another person to sexual contact who is (A) under fifteen years of age, or (B) mentally defective or mentally incapacitated to the extent that he is unable to consent to such sexual contact, or (C) physically helpless, or (D) less than eighteen years old and the actor is such person's guardian or otherwise responsible for the general 47

2. 3. 4.

5.

supervision of such person's welfare, or (E) in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over such other person; or such person subjects another person to sexual contact without such other person's consent; or such person engages in sexual contact with an animal or dead body; or such person is a psychotherapist and subjects another person to sexual contact who is (A) a patient of the actor and the sexual contact occurs during the psychotherapy session, or (B) a patient or former patient of the actor and such patient or former patient is emotionally dependent upon the actor, or (C) a patient or former patient of the actor and the sexual contact occurs by means of therapeutic deception; or such person subjects another person to sexual contact and accomplishes the sexual contact by means of false representation that the sexual contact is for a bona fide medical purpose by a health care professional; or such person is a school employee and subjects another person to sexual contact who is a student enrolled in a school in which the actor works or a school under the jurisdiction of the local or regional board of education which employs the actor.

Sex crimes statutes in CT – Descriptions of state criminal statutes and jury instructions for sex crimes are available on the Judicial Branch website at: http://jud.ct.gov/ji/Criminal/part7/Default.htm SOR - Sex Offender Registry - The Department of Emergency Services & Public Protection maintains the internet-based registry. Offenders are required to register with the State Police if they have been convicted for offenses identified by the CT Legislature. More information on CT’s SOR is available on-line at: http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?Q=471430&A=11 Sex Treatment Scores - The DOC assigns a sex treatment score to each sentenced prisoner in the system. Scores range from 1 to 5. Sex treatment scores were developed to assist the DOC in managing offenders while they are incarcerated. Scores are based on the offender’s sexual criminal history including conviction records, police reports, pre-sentence investigation reports and DOC sources. The scores are not intended for use as diagnostic scores. For a full explanation of DOC Sex treatment Scores can be viewed on page 35 of the DOC Classification Manual available on-line at the CT DOC website. Sex Treatment Score: S1 – A sex treatment score of S1 means that the offender has no current conviction, pending charges or identified history of sexual offenses. Sex Treatment Score: S2 – Offender has a current conviction, pending charges or a known history of non-contact sexual offenses. These behaviors may include: exhibitionism; use, sale or possession of child pornography; promoting the prostitution of a minor, obscene telephone calling, voyeurism, or other paraphilias. Sex Treatment Score: S3 – Offender has a current conviction, pending charges or a known history of sexual offenses involving physical contact with the victim. Offenses may include coercion, manipulation and exploitation. An inmate who engages in predatory sexual behavior while incarcerated will be given a score of S3.

48

Sex Treatment Score: S4 – Offender has a current conviction, pending charges or a known history of two or more sexual offenses involving physical contact. This score is assigned to offenders who have perpetrated two or more assaults on two or more victims. Physical violence may or may not have played a role in the sexual assaults. Sex Treatment Score: S5 – Offender has a current conviction, pending charges or a known history of a contact sexual offenses involving gratuitous or sadistic violence. An offender may also be classified with an S-5 score based on a clinical assessment using the HARE Psychopathy Scale. SMU – Sex Offender Management Unit at the DOC Office of Parole and Community Services oversees the supervision of sex offenders who are released to parole in the state. SMU parole officers have reduced caseloads that allow for enhanced oversight. Static-99 – is a 10-item actuarial assessment instrument that is widely used to assess risk among adult male sex-offenders. As a static assessment instrument offender scores do not change significantly over time. Dynamic assessment tools are critical in monitoring changes in the specific factors that may drive criminal behavior. TS – An acronym for Transitional Supervision, a discretionary community supervision program for offenders serving sentences of two years or less. A TS-eligible offender can be released from prison after completing 50% of their sentence if they have an approved sponsor and an appropriate residence to return to. VOP – Violation of probation (See Probation)

49


CT - Recidivism Study (02-15-2012)